Conte v. Conte’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 2024
6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Oake v. Collin County · McLendon v. McLendon · Estate of Hodges, Matter Of · Gunter v. Pogue · Myrick v. Moody
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An action to remove a trustee, like an action to remove an executor, is not an effort to vary the grantor’s intent. [Appellant’s] interpretation of the in terro-rem clause would deprive [appellee] of her statutoi~y rights under the trust provisions of the Texas Property Code, as the proposed construction of the in ter-rorem clause in Newbill would have deprived the beneficiaries of the statutory right to ensure that the executor was qualified.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[w]e do not believe such an action can be considered as an effort to vary the purpose and intent of the textatrix within the purview of the forfeiture clause we are considering. To hold otherwise would be inconsistent with the obvious intent of the law to make sure that an applicant is properly qualified to execute the fiduciary duty necessary in the administration of a decedent’s estate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.